Duncan O'Leary
Duncan works on projects looking at public services, skills and work.
The Times’ Comment Central is one of my favourite blogs and I enjoy Daniel Finkelstein’s writing, but something irks me about this post on welfare reforms. He writes:
‘Look at David Cameron's words in the News of the World to describe his new policy:
"Far too many are able to work but simply don't. We all know there are jobs available. That's a disgrace. We'll end the something-for-nothing culture."
Wouldn't it have been better - a more modernising approach - to talk about "helping people into work". The policy might be tough but the language should surely have been about enabling.'
The point is about political language, which I agree is important. But is this really the same as modernisation? If modernisation of political parties is mainly about re-framing policies, rather than re-thinking them, then the answer is yes. But I don’t think it is.
LOGIN to add comments
Comments
What does modernising a political party or society, at the turn of the 21st century in an advanced capitalist state, exactly mean? The concept of modernisation here is, as it has often been, a euphemism; it is not only abstract, it is equivocal and Delphic. It is used not only to occlude the very ideological foundations of the programmatic schemes but also to signify the absolute inevitability of this kind of change. Who after all wants to stand in the way of modernity? Restructuring programs, fiscal cuts, punitive anti-welfare measures etc become inexorable, jumping on the runway train that is neoliberal globalisation unavoidable. Around these issues there is complete consensus. The rhetorical deployment of 'modernisation' embodies the same absolutism it did during Thatcher’s reign: ‘there is no alternative’. It is precisely this situation that lays the ground for right-wing populism in Europe.
Hi Nasser,
Good point. Obviously it is possible to argue that something is out-dated and therefore needs modernising. But that requires reasoning about why that thing (product, process, policy) is outdated and doesn’t pre-judge what the ‘upgrade’ is, mean there is only one option, or remove any sense of values from the discussion.
In fact, to go a full circle, I think this language can be one of the things that puts people off change, because they feel railroaded into it and detatched from the reasons behind it.
Our fascination with k-waves and social trends certainly opens up the trap of suggesting that simply because a social trend exists, society should adapt to it. And our habit of starting with people can limit our ability to ask the question: what if the people are wrong?
These are all issues I've come across in my own work . Not sure whether anyone else recognises them though...